Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered and the closing "Read-only" is largely redundant. What the description does add beyond structured data is the return shape — the specific fields each baseline carries and the fact that a baseline captures dates, durations, work and costs — which matters because there is no output schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences that are front-loaded with the core action and return fields, then supply the domain definition, then scope. "Read-only" duplicates the annotation and is the one line that does not earn much, but there is no filler otherwise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and a fully described schema, the description covers return contents and defines the resource, which is sufficient to call it correctly. The remaining gap is disambiguation from planitude_list_versions, which the description never addresses.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already explains projectId including its UUID format and its provenance from planitude_list_projects. The description adds no further parameter meaning, which is acceptable but not additive.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ("Lists the project's baselines") and enumerates the returned fields (name, MS Project slot, capture date, task count), so its output is unambiguous. It does not differentiate itself from the close sibling planitude_list_versions, which likely returns comparable snapshot data, so the agent must infer the distinction.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied by the definition of "baseline" as a saved snapshot for comparison; there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not-to-use, and no pointer to planitude_list_versions or planitude_save_baseline as alternatives. An agent can guess the context (inspecting snapshots) but gets no routing guidance among the snapshot-related siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.